Asiansky Television Plc & Anor v Bayer-Rosin (a firm)

Asiansky Television Plc & Anor v Bayer-Rosin (a firm)

There was no satisfactory explanation for the delay in seeking permission to appeal, and the balance of prejudice weighed decisively against granting an extension of time. There was no error of principle in the judge's costs order to justify an appeal.

Parties
Claimant/applicant: Asiansky Television Plc; Claimant/applicant: Asiansky Properties Limited; Defendant/respondent: Bayer-Rosin (A Firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (renewed Application)
Outcome
Applications for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Extension of Time for Appeal, Costs Orders, Solicitor's Negligence, Causation of Loss
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Extension of Time for Appeal Costs Orders Solicitor's Negligence Causation of Loss

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Asiansky Television Plc

Claimant/applicant

Asiansky Properties Limited

Claimant/applicant

Bayer-Rosin (A Firm)

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (renewed Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants should be granted an extension of time to appeal the order of 11th June 2004
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in principle in his order as to costs on 17th June 2005

Ratio Decidendi

There was no satisfactory explanation for the delay in seeking permission to appeal, and the balance of prejudice weighed decisively against granting an extension of time. There was no error of principle in the judge's costs order to justify an appeal.

Court Disposition

Applications for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Permission to appeal from the order of 11th June 2004 refused
  • Permission to appeal from the order of 17th June 2005 (costs) refused